[Jsarokin]

I agree with the gist of what the article is saying.

For example, I can understand if a person from Tibet is upset about the Groupon commercial, but a person from America? You're not upset! You just want people to think you're upset. You're not even from Tibet! Get over it. (If you are from Tibet and found it tasteless, then you have the right to be upset.)

People are too involved with other peoples lives, and are always trying to find something to complain about.

The commercial was funny. Life's too short to get all pissy over a commercial.

[tree_of_item]

I think it's ridiculous to say that you only get the "right" to be upset if you're from the specific place mentioned in this particular instance. You have every "right" to be upset about someone insulting someone else, and you not being the target doesn't take anything away.

To take a pathological example, I have every right to be upset about neo nazis running racist advertisements, even if I'm not a member of any of the targeted races.

A better argument in defense of the commercial would be to say that it didn't really do much harm: there wasn't anything malicious like the neo nazi example, just a surprising transition to Groupon's purpose.

[Jsarokin]

Id say your first point is correct. I mis-wrote when I said "right". Anyone can say think or feel whatever they want.

The problem here is people are up in arms as if neo nazis ran a racist advertisement, when in reality Groupon made a commercial at Tibets expense (if you even want to say that).

The reactions to the commercial are "outrage" and "boycotting Groupon"... Do people not have anything better to do? That's the point I'm trying to get at. Sure you can "act" upset, but was anyone really truly upset at the commercial, or is it just to bring attention to themselves?